REL: 10/31/2014

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter . Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions , Ala b a ma Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other erro r s , in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter . 

# SUPREME COURT O F ALA BAMA

OCTOBER TE RM, 2 014-2 015

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 11314 40

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte Michae l Dal e Bennett PETIT ION FOR WR IT OFCERT IORAR I TO THE COURT OFCIVI L APPEALS (In r e: H .A. C ox and Las hun Hutson

v. Micha el Da le Be nnett ) (Lowndes C ircui t Cou rt, CV-12- 90002 4; Courtof C ivil Appea ls, 2 12105 3) WISE, Just ice. WRIT DENIE D. N O OPI NION.11314 40

Stuar t, Bolin , Parke r, Murdo ck, Shaw, Main, a n d B r yan, JJ., concu r. Moore , C.J ., di ssent s.

211314 40

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). On June 5, 2012, Micha el Dale B e n n e t t filed a compl aint again st Offic er H.A. Cox and O f f i c er Lashu n Hutso n of the Lownd es Count y Sheri ff's Depar tment ("the sheri ff's depar tment " ), in their offic ial capac ities , seeki ng the relea se an d ret urn o f $19 ,855 in ca sh he clai med b elong ed to him. Benne tt alleg ed that on Septe mber 2, 2011, offic ers of the s herif f's d epart ment had s eizedthe cash durin g a s earch of a vehic le in which he was a passe nger. Both Benne tt and the drive r were arres ted and broug ht to the sheri ff's depar tment ; the drive r was held pursu ant to an outst andin g w arran t, and Benne tt was relea sed. Benne tt argue d in his compl aint that no forfe iture o r c o n demna tion actio n had been promp tly filed again st the cash as requi red by § 20-2- 93(c) , Ala. Code 1975, and that, there fore, he was entit led to have the cash retur ned to hi m. In respo nse to a motio n for a summa ry judgm en t f i led by Benne tt, Cox and Hu tson claim ed that the feder al gover nment

was then i n posse ssion of the cash and that a feder al forfe iture proce eding was pendi ng. The trial court gr a n t ed Benne tt's motio n for a summa ry judgm en t . C ox and Hutso n

311314 40

appea led to the Court of Civil Appea ls, which rever se d t he judgm ent of the trial court . Cox v. Benne tt, [Ms. 21210 53, May 16, 2 014] ___ S o. 3d___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2014 ). Th e Cou rt of Civil Appe als h eld t hat " the d octri ne ofadop tive forfe iture appli ed in the prese nt case such that juris dicti on had veste d in the feder al distr ict court and, there fore, the trial court

never acqui red in rem juris dicti on over the prope rty." ___ So. 3d at ___. Benn ett n ow pe titio ns fo r a w rit o f cer tiora ri to revie w the Cour t of Civil Appe als' decis ion. In his petit ion, Benne tt argue s, among other thing s, that § 20-2- 93 does n o t permi t state or local law-e nforc ement

o ffici als to trans fer seize d prope rty to the feder a l gover nment t o i n i tiate a feder al forfe iture proce eding in order to avoid the stric ter forfe it u re laws in state court . Benne tt also argue s that this issue is one of first impre ssion for t his C ourt. Sect ion 2 0-2-9 3(d) provi des:

"(d) Prope rty taken or detai ned under this secti on shall not be subje ct to reple v i n b ut is deeme d to be in the custod y of the state , count y or munic ipal law enfor cemen t agenc y subje ct only to the order s and judgm ent of the court havin g juris dicti on over the forfe iture proce eding s. When prope rty is seize d under this chapt er, the state , count y or munic ipal law e nforc ement agen cy ma y:

"(1) Place the prope rty u nder seal;

411314 40 "(2) Remo v e t he prope rty to a place desig natedby i t; "(3) Requi re the state , count y or munic ipal law enfor cemen t agenc y to take custo dy of the prope rty and remov e it to an appro priat e locat ion for disp ositi on in accor dance withlaw; and

" ( 4 ) In the case of real prope rty o r fixtu res, post notic e of the seizu re on the prope rty, and file and recor d notic e of the seizu re in the proba te of fice. " (Emph asis added .) It appea rs that the sheri ff's depar tment tran s f e rred B ennet t's cash to the feder al gover nment in order that t h e feder al gover nment could insti tute a feder al forfe iture proce eding . The Court of Civil Appea ls previ ously has descr i b ed this proce ss, known as "adop tive seizu re," as follo ws: "The adopt ive-s eizur e proce ss begin s when state or loca l a uthor ities seize prope rty as part of a crimi nal inves tigat ion or arres t. Gener ally, the state or local offic ials eithe r make a deter minat ion that forfe iture is not possi ble under s tate law or concl ude that it is advan tageo us to them to trans fer the matte r to feder al autho ritie s for a feder al admin istra tive forfe iture proce eding . See I.R.S . Manua l 9.7.2 .7.3 (July 25, 2007) ; Asset Forfe iture Law, Pract ice, and Polic y, Asset Forfe iture Offic e, Crimi nal Divis ion, Unite d State s Depar tment of Justi ce, Vol. I (1988 ) at 38 (cite d in J o h n s on v. Johns on, 8 49 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Alas ka 1993) ). Once 511314 40

state or local offic ials hav e d e termi ned that an adopt ive seizu re is advan tageo u s , they file a reque st with feder al autho ritie s. The appro priat e feder al agenc y then decid es wheth er to acce p t o r rejec t the reque st. If the adopt ive-s eizur e reque st is accep ted, the prope rty is taken into the custo dy of feder al agent s and feder al admin istra tive forfe iture proce eding s begin . At the succe ssful concl usion of those proce eding s, usual ly 80% of the forfe ited prope rty is giv e n back to the state or local agen cy." Green v. C i t y o f Montg omery , 55 So. 3d 256, 258 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) . On its face, § 20-2- 9 3(d) does not expli citly autho rize state or local law-e nforc ement offic ials to trans fer, or forbi d them from trans ferri ng, seize d prope rty to feder al lawen force ment offic ials. The only porti on of the statu te that argua bly c ould autho rize such a tra nsferis § 20-2 -93(d )(3), which allow s state or local law-e nforc ement offic ials "to take custo dy of the prope rty and remov e it to an appro priat e locat ion for dispo sitio n in accor dance with law ." One could

reaso n, as the Court of C ivil Appea ls di d in Green , tha t the phras e "in acco rdanc e wit h law " doe s not nece ssari ly me an in

accor dance with Alaba ma law and there fore that the trans fer is validif i t is in ac corda nce w ith f edera l law . See Gree n, 55 So. 3d at 261. Howev er, this Court has held that, in

611314 40

const ruing a statu te, "[i]f a liter al const ruct ion would p roduc e an absur d and unjus t resul t that is clear ly incon siste nt with the purpo se and polic y of the statu te, such

a const ructi on is to be avoid ed." City of Besse mer v. McCla in, 957 So. 2d 1061, 1075 (Ala. 2006) . See also 1 W i l l iam Black sto ne, Comme ntari es *60-6 2; Ex parte Baker , 143 So. 3d 754, 757-5 9 (Ala. 2013) (Moor e, C.J . , disse nting and expla ining Black stone 's view of equit y in inter preti ng statu tes). As the Court o f Civil Appea ls noted in Green , the adopt ive-s eizur e proce ss is used when "stat e or local offic ials eithe r mak e a d eterm inati on th at fo rfeit ure i s not possi ble u nder state law or co nclud e tha t it is advanta geous to them to trans fer the matte r to feder al a u t h oriti es for a feder al adminis trati ve fo rfeit ure p rocee ding. " Gre en, 5 5 So. 3d at 258 (emph asis added ). If for f e i t u re is not possi ble under state law, then would it not be absur d to const rue § 20- 2-93( d)(3) to a llow state or l ocal law-e nforc ement offi cials to circu mvent state law by trans ferri ng the seize d prope rty to feder al law-e nforc ement offic ials for a proce eding not allow ed understat e law ? Mor eover , if state or l ocal law-e nforc ement

711314 40

offic ials could not obtai n a perso n's seize d prope rty under

s t a t e law, would it not be unjus t for the state or loca l gover nment entit y to trans fer that prope rty to the fe d eral gover nment for forfe iture and then be given 80 perce nt of the prope rty back? These conce rns compe l me to find a proba bilit y of merit to Benne tt's f i r s t -impr essio n argum ent, altho ugh I 1 would also like to hear argum ents from the State regar ding the const ructi on of § 20-2- 93. There fore, I would g r a n t the p etiti on for a writ of certi orari in order to fully exa m i n e what I bel ieve to be an i ssue of fi rst i mpres sion.

Altho ugh this Cour t repea tedly has addre ssed the issue 1 of adopt ive forfe iture s, it never has consi dered the speci fic quest ion w h e ther § 20-2- 93 autho rizes state or local lawenfor cemen t off icial s to trans fer s eizedprop erty to fe deral a uthor ities to comme nce a feder al forfe iture proce eding . Altho ugh this Co u r t denie d certi orari revie w in Green , in which the Court of Civil Appea ls addre ssed this issu e , this Court condu cts only a "prel imina r y exami natio n" when it is deter minin g wheth e r t o grant a petit ion for a writ of certi orari . Rule 39(f) , Ala. R. App. P. Becau se this Court has never condu cted a full exami natio n of the issue , it remai ns an issue of f irst impre ssion . 8